FISI RIM USB Patent Suit

Case 2:19-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/11/19 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION
SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00048
vs.
APPLE, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (“Plaintiff” or
“Fundamental”), by and through its undersigned counsel, brings this action against Defendant
Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) to prevent Defendant’s continued infringement of Plaintiff’s patents without
authorization and to recover damages resulting from such infringement.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability company with a place of business located at
2990 Long Prairie Road, Suite B, Flower Mound, Texas 75022.
2. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent
Nos. 6,936,936 (the “’936 Patent”), 7,239,111 (the “’111 Patent”), 7,834,586 (the “’586 Patent”),
8,232,766 (the “’766 Patent”), and 8,624,550 (the “’550 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-
Suit”).
3. On information and belief, Defendant Apple, Inc. is a California corporation with
a place of business at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California 95014. Apple may be served
through its registered agent CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas
75201.
4. On information and belief, Apple directly and/or indirectly imports, develops,
designs, manufactures, uses, distributes, markets, offers to sell and/or sells products and services
in the United States, including in this district, and otherwise purposefully directs activities to the
same.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., including 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple because Apple has substantial,
systematic, and continuous contacts with this judicial district. On information and belief, Apple
has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas,
regularly conducts business in the State of Texas and in this judicial district, and maintains
facilities and employees within Texas and within this judicial district. On information and belief,
Apple has sold and offered to sell infringing products in this State and judicial district and has
committed acts of patent infringement and/or contributed to or induced acts of patent infringement
by others in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas. For example, Apple sells infringing
products through its stores located in Plano, Texas and Frisco, Texas. Apple also has authorized
retailers for infringing products in this judicial district such as Simply Mac in Tyler, Texas and
Fry’s Electronics, Inc., in Plano, Texas. Plaintiff’s cause of action arises directly from Apple’s
business contacts and other activities in the State of Texas.
7. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and
1400(b). Apple is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, and has a regular and
established place of business in this judicial district, including Apple Stores at 6121 West Park
Boulevard in Plano, Texas and 2601 Preston Road in Frisco, Texas. Apple also has Apple Stores
in other locations in the state of Texas, and Apple has facilities in Austin, Texas. Further, certain
-2-
of the acts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims of infringement alleged herein occurred in this judicial
district, including the sale and offers to sell infringing products in this judicial district through
Apple’s stores, its retailers and its website at www.apple.com.
8. In December 2016, Plaintiff filed case no. 16-cv-01425 in this district against LG
Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc., LG
Electronics Mobile Research U.S.A. LLC, and LG Electronics Alabama, Inc., asserting
infringement of, inter alia, the ’111, ’550, ’586 and ’766 Patents (“the LG Case”).
9. In December 2016, Plaintiff filed case no. 16-cv-01424 in this district against
Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA,
Inc., and Futurewei Technologies, Inc., asserting infringement of, inter alia, the ’111, ’550, ’586
and ’766 Patents (“the Huawei Case”).
10. In February 2016, Plaintiff filed case no. 17-cv-00145 in this district against
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserting infringement of,
inter alia, the ’111, ’550, ’586, ’766 and ’936 Patents (“the Samsung Case”).
11. On January 31, 2018, this court issued an order in the Samsung Case construing
claim terms in the ’111, ’550, ’586, ’766 and ’936 Patents.
12. On April 2, 2018, this court issued an order in the LG Case and Huawei Case
construing claim terms in the ’111, ’550, ’586, and ’766 Patents.
13. In view of the LG Case, Huawei Case and Samsung Case, this Court has substantial
knowledge regarding the asserted patents, and principles of judicial economy further support venue
in this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Patents-in-Suit
14. The Patents-in-Suit relate to, among other things, novel techniques for using
Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) in connection with mobile devices to both facilitate data
communication and allow for the charging of certain classes of devices. This technology
-3-
represented a fundamental break from previous techniques for mobile device charging and has
supported the rapid miniaturization of mobile devices, improved user experiences and led to a
dramatic increase in performance and features.
15. The Patents-in-Suit resulted from a large scale research and development program
at Research In Motion Limited (“RIM”), later reorganized as BlackBerry Limited (“BlackBerry”).
At the time of inventions, RIM was a global leader and pioneer in the field of wireless mobile
communications. The company was founded in 1984 and revolutionized the mobile industry when
it launched the BlackBerry® 850 in 1999. Fundamental is responsible for protecting and licensing
seminal BlackBerry innovations in the field of USB charging.
Apple’s Accused Products and Infringement
16. On information and belief, Apple makes, uses, sells, offers for sale and/or imports
infringing charging adapters and mobile devices in the United States, including but not limited to
the Apple 1A charging adapter, Apple 2.1A charging adapter and Apple 2.4A charging adapter;
iPhone Xs, iPhone Xs Max, iPhone XR, iPhone X, iPhone 8, iPhone 8+, iPhone 7, iPhone 7+,
iPhone SE, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s+, iPhone 6, iPhone 6+, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5; iPad 6,
iPad Pro 2nd 10.5", iPad Pro 2nd 12.9", iPad 5, iPad Pro 9.7", iPad Pro 12.9", iPad mini 4, iPad
mini 3, iPad Air 2, iPad mini 2, iPad Air, iPad 4; iPod Touch 6th Gen, iPod Touch 5th Gen;
Airpods; Apple Watch 1st Gen, Apple Watch Series 1, Apple Watch Series 2, Apple Watch Series
3, Apple Watch Series 4; Beats Pill+; and Macbook Pro 4th Gen, Macbook 8, Macbook 9,
Macbook 10 and Macbook Air 8, and other models that include similar functionality (“Accused
Products”).
17. Certain of the Accused Products are mobile devices that include USB interfaces,
USB communication paths and charging sub-systems that are operably connected to the USB
interface. The charging sub-systems are configured to receive power and use the power to charge
a battery. The mobile devices are able to detect an identification signal received via the USB
interface, which may be an abnormal USB data condition and is different than USB enumeration,
such as a voltage of 2 volts on the D+ line and 2.7 volts on the D- line of the USB communication
-4-
path. The identification signal enables the mobile device to draw current unrestricted by a USB
specification limit.
18. Certain of the Accused Products are charging adapters that are designed to provide
power to a mobile device. The charging adapters receive power from a power socket and include
a power converter that regulates the received power to generate a DC power output. The charging
adapters are configured to generate an identification signal, such as a voltage of 2 volts on a D+
line and 2.7 volts on a D- line, that indicates to the mobile device that it is receiving power from a
source that is not a USB host or hub. The charging adapters are able to supply current to a mobile
device without regard to at least one associated condition specified in a USB specification.
Apple’s Knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and Infringement
19. On December 14, 2015, Fundamental sent a letter to Mr. B.J. Watrous, Apple’s VP
and Chief IP Counsel, which identified the Patents-in-Suit and suggested to Apple that it should
take a license to the Patents-in-Suit. On August 21, 2017, Fundamental sent a letter to Ms. Denise
Kerstein, Head of Patent Acquisitions at Apple, and Mr. Jeff Lasker, Legal Counsel IP
Transactions at Apple, reiterating Fundamental’s desire to license the Patents-in-Suit to Apple and
specifically identifying multiple Apple products that infringe the Patents-in-Suit. Fundamental
also provided Apple with exemplary claim charts demonstrating infringement on August 31, 2017.
20. After being notified of its infringement, Apple sent a letter on April 5, 2018
indicating that it believed the Patents-in-Suit were invalid in view of multiple requests for inter
partes review (“IPR”) that had been filed against the Patents-in-Suit. Apple’s letter did not identify
any basis for believing that its products do not infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
21. Subsequent to Apple’s April 5, 2018 letter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(“PTAB”) denied institution of all IPRs that had been filed against the Patents-in-Suit, with the
exception of one IPR petition filed against the ’550 Patent – IPR2018-00111 (“the ’0111 IPR”).
In the ’0111 IPR, the PTAB found “that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
it would prevail with respect to” only claim 10 of the ’550 Patent, but not with respect to any other
claims. Notably, the ’0111 IPR did not involve the prior art grounds discussed in Apple’s April 5,
-5-
2018 letter. The IPR that had been filed against the ’550 Patent based on the grounds discussed in
Apple’s April 5, 2018 letter was denied institution by the PTAB.
22. On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff sent a letter to Mr. Brian Ankenbrandt, Senior Counsel
IP Transactions at Apple, notifying Apple regarding the decisions in the ’550 IPRs.
23. In July 2018, Plaintiff entered into a patent license agreement with Samsung
Electronics.
24. In September 2018, Plaintiff entered into a patent license agreement with Huawei
Device.
25. In October 2018, Plaintiff entered into a patent license agreement with LG
Electronics.
26. In August and November 2018, Plaintiff met with Apple to discuss a possible
license to the Patents-in-Suit. Following the November 2018 meeting, Plaintiff and Apple
scheduled a meeting for February 7, 2019. Two days in advance of the February 7 meeting, Apple
filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California seeking a declaration that
Apple does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
27. Despite the PTAB’s denial of institution of the IPRs filed against the Patents-in-
Suit, Apple did not take a license to the Patents-in-Suit, did not stop infringing the Patents-in-Suit,
and did not provide any detailed analysis to Plaintiff explaining why Apple believed it did not
infringe or did not need a license.
28. After having received notice of the Patents-in-Suit, Apple has continued to make,
use, sell, offer for sale, and import into the United States the Accused Products. As an example,
Apple has continued to sell, offer to sell and import Accused Products via its stores, its web site
http://www.apple.com, and through authorized retailers. Apple’s making, using, selling, offering
to sell and importing of the Accused Products into the United States constitute direct infringement
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). On information and belief, Apple also directly infringes one or more
method claims in the Patents-in-Suit by testing, repairing, and using the Accused Products in the
United States.
-6-
29. After having received notice of the Patents-in-Suit, Apple has continued to make,
use, sell, offer for sale, and import into the United States the Accused Products with knowledge
that these Accused Products are a material part of inventions claimed by the Patents-in-Suit and
are especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. On information
and belief, Apple knows that the Accused Products are not a staple article or commodity of
commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Apple’s actions contribute to the direct
infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by others, including customers of the Accused Products, in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). For example, the Accused Products include battery charging
adapters, which are a component of a patented machine, manufacture, or combination, or an
apparatus for use in practicing a patented process. Furthermore, such components are a material
part of the invention and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
non-infringing use.
30. After having received notice of the Patents-in-Suit, Apple has continued to
advertise and distribute the Accused Products, offer technical assistance, and publish user manuals,
specifications, promotional literature or instructions to customers, partners, and/or end users,
advising them to use the Accused Products in a manner that directly infringes the Patents-in-Suit.
On information and belief, by such acts, Apple actively induced, and continues to actively induce,
direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). For example,
Apple’s customers who purchase the Accused Products and operate the Accused Products in
accordance with instructions provided by Apple, directly infringe one or more claims of the
Patents-in-Suit. Apple provides such instructions through, for example, user guides, including user
guides located at https://support.apple.com, https://help.apple.com/iphone/10/ and
https://help.apple.com/ipad/10/. For example, the following instructions are provided by Apple to
customers for charging an Apple iPhone:
-7-
https://help.apple.com/iphone/10/#/iph63eecc618.
31. On information and belief, Apple has further actively induced infringement by
remaining willfully blind to its customers’ infringement despite believing there to be a high
probability its customers, among others, infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,936)
32. Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
33. The ’936 Patent, titled “Multifunctional Charger System and Method,” was duly
-8-
and legally issued on August 30, 2005. A true and correct copy of the ’936 Patent is attached as
Exhibit A.
34. The ’936 Patent names Daniel M. Fischer, Dan G. Radut, Michael F. Habicher,
Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.
35. The ’936 Patent has been in full force and effect since its issuance. Fundamental
owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ’936 Patent, including the
exclusive right to seek damages for past, current and future infringement thereof.
36. Apple has been, and currently is, directly infringing the ’936 Patent by making,
using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States at least the following
products: Apple 1A charging adapter, Apple 2.1A charging adapter and Apple 2.4A charging
adapter; iPhone Xs, iPhone Xs Max, iPhone XR, iPhone X, iPhone 8, iPhone 8+, iPhone 7, iPhone
7+, iPhone SE, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s+, iPhone 6, iPhone 6+, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5; iPad
6, iPad Pro 2nd 10.5", iPad Pro 2nd 12.9", iPad 5, iPad Pro 9.7", iPad Pro 12.9", iPad mini 4, iPad
mini 3, iPad Air 2, iPad mini 2, iPad Air, iPad 4; iPod Touch 6th Gen, iPod Touch 5th Gen; and
Macbook Pro 4th Gen, Macbook 8, Macbook 9, Macbook 10 and Macbook Air 8, and other models
that include similar functionality to the extent not licensed to the Patents-in-Suit. Apple’s products
infringe at least claims 1-3, 13-15, 25-29, 51-52, 55-56, 63-64, 70-71, 84-86, and 94 of the ’936
Patent.
37. The identified products include charging adapters that are able to provide power to
a mobile device and mobile devices that are configured to receive power from such adapters. As
shown in the photo below, the adapter products include a plug unit that can be plugged into an
electrical socket to receive energy from the socket.
-9-
https://www.apple.com/power-adapters/
38. The adapter products also include a power converter that regulates energy from the
power socket and converts the 100-240v AC voltage to a 5v DC voltage that can be output from
the charging adapter.
39. The identified adapter products also include a USB connector that is electrically
connected to the power converter and that is able to deliver power to a mobile device through a
USB cable.
https://help.apple.com/iphone/10/#/iph63eecc618
40. The USB connecter is also electrically connected to an identification subsystem
- 10 -
that includes resistors connected to the D+ and D- lines in the adapter. The identification
subsystem is configured to generate an identification signal that consists of one of the below
highlighted voltage pairs on the D+ and D-:
https://www.cypress.com/file/134011/download at 5 (annotation added).
41. As shown above, the voltage pairs are logic high signals on the D+ and D− lines.
42. The identified adapters are sold by Apple with the identified mobile devices, or for
use with the identified mobile devices. The identified mobile devices have a power distribution
subsystem, which includes a power management chip that is operable to receive energy through a
USB connector and to distribute the energy to at least one component in the mobile device.
43. On information and belief, Apple has been, and currently is, inducing infringement
of the ’936 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by knowingly encouraging or aiding others
to make, use, sell, or offer to sell the Accused Products in the United States, or to import the
Accused Products into the United States, without license or authority from Fundamental, with
knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that Apple’s actions will induce others, including but
not limited to its customers, partners, and/or end users, to directly infringe the ’936 patent. Apple
induces others to infringe the ’936 Patent by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions
that Apple knows to be acts of infringement of the ’936 Patent with intent that those performing
the acts infringe the ’936 Patent.

44. On information and belief, Apple has been, and currently is, contributorily
- 11 -
infringing the ’936 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), by selling or offering for sale, in this
judicial district and throughout the United States, components that embody a material part of the
inventions described in the ’936 Patent, are known by Apple to be especially made or especially
adapted for use in infringement of the ’936 Patent, and are not staple articles of commerce or
commodities suitable for substantial, non-infringing use, including at least the Accused Products.
Apple’s actions contribute to the direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by others, including
customers of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
45. As a result of Apple’s infringement of the ’936 Patent, Fundamental has been
damaged. Fundamental is entitled to recover for damages sustained as a result of Apple’s wrongful
acts in an amount to be determined.
46. In addition, Apple’s infringing acts have caused and are causing immediate and
irreparable harm to Fundamental.
47. Apple has had actual knowledge of its infringement of the ’936 Patent since no later
than August 21, 2017. On information and belief, Apple’s infringement of the ’936 Patent has
been and continues to be deliberate and willful, and, therefore, this is an exceptional case
warranting an award of treble damages and attorney’s fees to Fundamental pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§§ 284-285.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
49. The ’111 Patent, titled “Universal Serial Bus Adapter for a Mobile Device,” was
duly and legally issued on July 3, 2007. A true and correct copy of the ’111 Patent is attached as
Exhibit B.
- 12 -
52. On information and belief, Apple has been, and currently is, directly infringing
the ’111 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing into the United States
at least the following products: Apple 1A charging adapter, Apple 2.1A charging adapter and
Apple 2.4A charging adapter, and other models that include similar functionality to the extent not
licensed to the Patents-in-Suit. On information and belief, Apple’s products infringe at least claims
1-3, 6-8, and 16-18 of the ’111 Patent.
53. The identified products are charging adapters that are able to provide power to a
mobile device. The products include a plug unit that can be plugged into an electrical socket to
receive energy from the socket.
https://www.apple.com/power-adapters/
54. The products also include a power converter that regulates energy from the power
socket and converts the 100-240v AC voltage to a 5v DC voltage that can be output from the
charging adapter.
55. The identified products include an identification subsystem in the form of resistors
that are connected to the D+ and D- lines in the adapter. The identification subsystem is configured
- 13 -
to generate an identification signal that consists of one of the below highlighted voltage pairs on
the D+ and D-:
56. These voltage pairs indicate to the mobile device that the power socket is not a USB
host or hub.
57. The identified products also include a USB connector that is coupled to the power
converter through a Vbus line and to the identification subsystem. The USB connector is
configured to couple the power output and identification signal to a mobile device, through a USB
cable.
- 14 -
§§ 284-285.
- 15 -
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
and legally issued on November 16, 2010. A true and correct copy of the ’586 Patent is attached
as Exhibit C.
products: iPhone Xs, iPhone Xs Max, iPhone XR, iPhone X, iPhone 8, iPhone 8+, iPhone 7, iPhone
7+, iPhone SE, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s+, iPhone 6, iPhone 6+, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5; iPad
6, iPad Pro 2nd 10.5", iPad Pro 2nd 12.9", iPad 5, iPad Pro 9.7", iPad Pro 12.9", iPad mini 4, iPad
mini 3, iPad Air 2, iPad mini 2, iPad Air, iPad 4; iPod Touch 6th Gen, iPod Touch 5th Gen; and
Macbook Pro 4th Gen, Macbook 8, Macbook 9, Macbook 10 and Macbook Air 8, and other models
that include similar functionality to the extent not licensed to the Patents-in-Suit. On information
and belief, Apple’s products infringe at least claims 8-13 of the ’586 Patent.
68. The identified products are mobile devices that include a USB interface configured
to allow reception of a USB cable through electrical connections in a connector on the device.
- 16 -
69. The mobile devices receive power on a Vbus line of the interface, which is operably
connected to a charging subsystem that includes a power management chip and/or charging chip.
Photo of PMU/Charger in Apple iPad 6
70. The charging subsystem is also connected to a battery and is configured to charge
the battery using power supplied to the mobile device on the Vbus.
71. The identified products are capable of detecting an identification signal at a D+ and
- 17 -
a D− data line of the USB interface, the identification signal being different than USB enumeration.
Specifically, when connected to an Apple 1A, 2.1A or 2.4A charging adapter, the identified
products detect one of the below highlighted voltage pairs on the D+ and D- lines:
72. The above voltages are different than USB enumeration, which involves
differential signaling and does not involve both the D+ and D- lines being driven to voltages of 2
or more volts.
- 18 -
§§ 284-285.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

and legally issued on July 31, 2012. A true and correct copy of the ’766 Patent is attached as
Exhibit D.
- 19 -
products: iPhone Xs, iPhone Xs Max, iPhone XR, iPhone X, iPhone 8, iPhone 8+, iPhone 7,
iPhone 7+, iPhone SE, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s+, iPhone 6, iPhone 6+, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone
5; iPad 6, iPad Pro 2nd 10.5", iPad Pro 2nd 12.9", iPad 5, iPad Pro 9.7", iPad Pro 12.9", iPad mini
4, iPad mini 3, iPad Air 2, iPad mini 2, iPad Air, iPad 4; iPod Touch 6th Gen, iPod Touch 5th Gen;
Airpods; Apple Watch 1st Gen, Apple Watch Series 1, Apple Watch Series 2, Apple Watch Series
3, Apple Watch Series 4; Beats Pill+; and Macbook Pro 4th Gen, Macbook 8, Macbook 9,
Macbook 10 and Macbook Air 8, and other models that include similar functionality to the extent
not licensed to the Patents-in-Suit. On information and belief, Apple’s products infringe at least
claims 1-24 of the ’766 Patent.
83. The identified products are mobile devices that include D+ and D- lines that are a
USB communication path. For example, the D+ and D- lines in the mobile device can be
connected to a USB 2.0 port on a Mac computer or PC to communicate data with the Mac or PC.
- 20 -
https://help.apple.com/iphone/10/#/iph3bf4317b
84. The identified products also have a charging subsystem, which includes a power
management chip and/or charging chip, that is enabled to draw current unrestricted by at least one
predetermined USB Specification limit. The enablement is in response to the detection of, for
example, one of the highlighted voltage pairs below:
- 21 -
85. These voltage pairs are an abnormal USB data condition because normal USB data
conditions involve differential signaling, and not signals where both the D+ and D- are driven
high.
- 22 -
§§ 284-285.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
and legally issued on January 7, 2014. A true and correct copy of the ’550 Patent is attached as
Exhibit E.
products: Apple 1A charging adapter, Apple 2.1A charging adapter and Apple 2.4A charging
adapter, and other models that include similar functionality to the extent not licensed to the Patents-
in-Suit. On information and belief, Apple’s products infringe at least claims 3-8, and 12-17 of the
’550 Patent.
96. The identified products are charging adapters that include a USB VBUS line and
D+/D- lines that are a USB communication path. When connected to mobile device, the identified
products generate one of the below highlighted voltage pairs on the D+ and D- lines:
- 23 -
https://www.cypress.com/file/134011/download
97. As shown above, the adapters are configured to supply current on the VBUS line
of 1A, 2.1A, or 2.4A, which is without regard to the current limits in the USB specification.
Furthermore, the identified products supply the above currents without conducting USB
enumeration.
- 24 -
§§ 284-285.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Fundamental prays for judgment against Apple as follows:
A. That Apple has infringed, and continues to infringe, each of the Patents-in-Suit;
B. That Apple pay Fundamental damages adequate to compensate Fundamental for
Apple’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, together with interest and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
C. That Apple be ordered to pay pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the

damages assessed;
D. That Apple be ordered to pay supplemental damages to Fundamental, including
interest, with an accounting, as needed;
E. That Apple’s infringement is willful and that the damages awarded to Fundamental
should be trebled;
F. That this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that Apple pay
Fundamental’s attorney’s fees and costs in this action;
G. That Apple be enjoined from directly and indirectly infringing the Patents-in-Suit;
- 25 -
and
H. That Fundamental be awarded such other and further relief, including other
monetary and equitable relief, as this Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Fundamental hereby demands a trial
by jury on all issues triable by jury.
- 26 -
Dated: February 11, 2019 /s/ J. Mark Mann

J. Mark Mann
State Bar No. 12926150
mark@themannfirm.com
G. Blake Thompson
State Bar No. 24042033
blake@themannfirm.com
MANN | TINDEL | THOMSPON
300 W Main Street
Henderson, TX 75652
Tel: (903)657-8540
Edward J. DeFranco (pro hac vice forthcoming)

eddefranco@quinnemanuel.com
Brian P. Biddinger (admitted in this District)
NY Bar No. 4479382
brianbiddinger@quinnemanuel.com
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Tel. (212) 849-7000
Fax (212) 849-7100
Kevin P.B. Johnson (pro hac vice forthcoming)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Tel. (650) 801-5000
Fax (650) 801-5100
kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation

Systems International LLC
- 27 -

FISI RIM USB Patent Suit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

FISI RIM USB Patent Suit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 2:19-cv-00048 Document 1 Filed 02/11/19 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00048

APPLE, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (“Plaintiff” or

authorization and to recover damages resulting from such infringement.

1. Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability company with a place of business located at

2990 Long Prairie Road, Suite B, Flower Mound, Texas 75022.

3. On information and belief, Defendant Apple, Inc. is a California corporation with

4. On information and belief, Apple directly and/or indirectly imports, develops,

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

business contacts and other activities in the State of Texas.

7. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(d) and

Apple’s stores, its retailers and its website at www.apple.com.

Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A. Inc., LG

and ’766 Patents (“the Huawei Case”).

dramatic increase in performance and features.

at Research In Motion Limited (“RIM”), later reorganized as BlackBerry Limited (“BlackBerry”).

seminal BlackBerry innovations in the field of USB charging.

Apple’s Accused Products and Infringement

adapters are configured to generate an identification signal, such as a voltage of 2 volts on a D+

Apple’s Knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and Infringement

Apple’s April 5, 2018 letter was denied institution by the PTAB.

Apple does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit.

infringe or did not need a license.

infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by others, including customers of the Accused Products, in

adapters, which are a component of a patented machine, manufacture, or combination, or an

specifications, promotional literature or instructions to customers, partners, and/or end users,

direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). For example,

guides located at https://support.apple.com, https://help.apple.com/iphone/10/ and

https://help.apple.com/ipad/10/. For example, the following instructions are provided by Apple to

customers for charging an Apple iPhone:

probability its customers, among others, infringe the Patents-in-Suit.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,936)

32. Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.

electrical socket to receive energy from the socket.

the charging adapter.

40. The USB connecter is also electrically connected to an identification subsystem

highlighted voltage pairs on the D+ and D-:

https://www.cypress.com/file/134011/download at 5 (annotation added).

the acts infringe the ’936 Patent.

customers of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

acts in an amount to be determined.

irreparable harm to Fundamental.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,239,111)

48. Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.

1-3, 6-8, and 16-18 of the ’111 Patent.

receive energy from the socket.

the D+ and D-:

https://www.cypress.com/file/134011/download at 5 (annotation added).

the acts infringe the ’111 Patent.

customers of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

acts in an amount to be determined.

irreparable harm to Fundamental.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,834,586)

63. Fundamental re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

Quang A. Luong, and Jonathan T. Malton as co-inventors.